Who owns the photos?

[Miss Chicken]

So it looks like Wikipedia were right in their interpretation of copyright law. After this determination I think it Mr Slater would be foolish to take it further based on his contributation towards the creation of the photo.

I am not sure about the elephant painting would come under this ruling. I gather that the elephant trainers hold the elephants' ears and direct those paintings so the trainer is deciding what strokes to make.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So it looks like Wikipedia were right in their interpretation of copyright law. After this determination I think it Mr Slater would be foolish to take it further based on his contributation towards the creation of the photo.

I am not sure about the elephant painting would come under this ruling. I gather that the elephant trainers hold the elephants' ears and direct those paintings so the trainer is deciding what strokes to make.

It's still premature to say that Wikipedia was right about this. The Compendium III is a new codification of policies of the Copyright Office that don't become effective until December. The Compendium is also still subject to revision; it's made public before it takes effect so that interested parties can offer feedback. The LA Times article from trekkiedane says,

The U.S. Copyright Office hasn’t commented on these specific monkey selfies, so presumably Slater can still make that case.

In other words, (as of right now) the new policy won't be retroactive, so Slater can still sue Wikipedia in court. Furthermore, the Compendium itself doesn't have force of law. The Compendium only reflects the Office's policies that it believes to be in accordance with the law. The last Copyright Act was in 1976, so it could be up to the courts to decide the matter anyway.

Upthread, I said:

I wouldn't be surprised if a court ruled that the original copyright holder was whoever owned the camera

After learning more about this, I've changed my mind now, and I would be surprised if the courts ruled in Slater's favor. In 1991, the US Supreme Court rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine as a basis for claiming copyright of compiled data. My thinking now is that that ruling undermines Slater's side in this.